Its A FAKE Govern-ment…A Corporation

OPPTA very good elucidation  of the UCC, CVAC and the filings by the OPPT. I do not however, concur on the SwissIndo part…but that’s just me.

Read more on the OPPT announcement.

By Daniel Gross – Facebook

As was announced publicly on 25 December 2012, the existing system of corporate and
governmental rule has been legally shut down via one of its own mechanisms. All debt has been erased and corporations (including but not limited to corporate governments and banks) have been foreclosed.

A series of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filings made by the One People’s Public Trust (OPPT) in 2012 created a new framework for social governance that is now in effect. All the people of the world are now legally and lawfully free of economic slavery systems. This fact has now been ratified and formally established within the legal framework of the formerly dominant, corporate-controlled law codes. Corporate-controlled governments and corporate-controlled media have refused to announce this remarkable event, because it means the end of their power. As aware global citizens, we must understand what happened and how, so that we can inform others and begin the process of worldwide change for which all the world’s people have been waiting.

Important facts about the existing slavery systems that have now been foreclosed:

1) Existing governments are corporations. Corporations collect money on behalf of their
investors. This system is oligarchical and designed only to profit a powerful few while the
rest of the people work their whole lives in order to support it, thereby stealing the value of
the people. So-called governments have acted as beneficiaries rather than trustees of
government trusts. For example, the United States, Canada, Australia, The United Kingdom, France, Italy, Brazil, Japan, and South Africa are registered as corporations with the United States Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Corporation of Egypt (which we conventionally think of as a country) is in fact registered with the SEC as an oil company.

2) Banks working in collusion with corporate governments then provide huge loans to each
country. Bankers and government officials make these loans with the direct intention of
creating such a massive debt that the people of the country will be unable to pay it. In this
way, banks and governments knowingly and intentionally bankrupt the nation. They start
wars and conflicts by selling weapons to both sides, thereby increasing the corporations’
profits for the corporations and increasing the people’s debt in regions involved in the

3) Persons are corporations. When a child is born, that child’s parents apply for a birth
certificate on behalf of the child. After this application is signed by the parents, the corporate government of the child’s natal country uses it to establish a trust fund in the child’s name. This trust is used as a collateral account, created and funded in the name of the child who is the actual beneficiary of the trust. However, the crime is that the corporate government does not tell the child’s parents that this trust exists. If the child does not register a last will and testament by the time they are 7 years old, the corporate government declares that child to be deceased. Corporate government then assumes financial control of the child’s estate, and the bankers and government officials (who are quite aware that most people actually live beyond the age of 7) thereafter treat all people as living slaves. The funds generated by monetizing every person’s life, by using every child’s future work as collateral, are in turn loaned back to them when they apply for bank financing or a mortgage. All people are then forced to work to repay those funds, plus interest, to the corporate banking system. Again, people have no legal rights within this corporate system of admiralty law because a person is considered to be legally ‘dead’ by the age of 7 and the corporate government takes control of the estate.

4) Corporate governments use mainstream media as a tool to deliver propaganda directly into the homes of the people. Bankers and government officials use mainstream media to
manipulate public perceptions of corporate government action and inaction; to reinforce
social norms, limits and behaviors; and to sell the people nonsense by creating a fictitious
‘need’ alongside a product to full fill it. Educational and religious institutions reinforce this
psychology as well. Corporations, governments and mainstream media all tell the same lies. The aim of all of them is to create conflict, person against person and country against
country, so that they can make more money.

5) The world’s existing economic structure, now foreclosed, is a mechanism of mass slavery. Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work for survival. Slaves are held against their will from the time of their birth, capture, or purchase, and they are deprived of the right to leave or refuse to work.

Is this an overthrow of governments?

The foreclosure does not constitute an overthrow of governments, because these so-called governments do not in fact represent the people: they are corporations that have until now masqueraded as governments by secretly rewriting the constitutions of sovereign nations. Their end can only be seen as long overdue.
UCC: The ‘bible of commerce’

See: “Jordan Maxwell – ‘You are property of the elite globalist bankers'”

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is called the ‘bible of commerce’. It precisely dictates the manner in which international trade and commerce should be enacted. In fact, the entire commercial system pivots around UCC law. If a person’s mortgage is foreclosed on, or their car is repossessed, the bank uses the UCC process to do so. All international transactions between nations are settled through the UCC. UCC law is not taught in law schools. It remains the domain of corporations who train their own legal-department employees in UCC law, thus keeping the knowledge of this important mechanism ‘in house’. The U.S. court system invariably supports the corporate system. This is not surprising, because 99% of our laws relate to ownership or commerce. The OPPT Trustees concluded that the corporations operating under the guise of the people’s governments and financial systems were committing treason against all the people of this planet without the people’s knowing, willing and intentional consent.

How did the Trustees achieve the foreclosure of slavery systems?

OPPT was created when the three OPPT Trustees bonded themselves to (and so reinstated) the Trust that was framed in the original United States Constitution of 1776. That constitution was abandoned when the United States government was incorporated in 1871. Other countries were incorporated after the Great Depression of the 1920s, which was itself a result of market manipulation by bankers. The very same manipulation has been ongoing since 2008. The OPPT Trustees then bonded every individual on the planet to this Trust as its beneficiaries in equity, known as ‘the One People, created by The Creator’. In so doing, the Trustees framed a trust that has a superior claim to any other: the Trust between the Creator and the ‘states of body’ of Earth. The ‘states of body’ of Earth are the beneficiaries of the Creator; all the people of the world are the custodians of the Creator’s manifestations on Earth. Lawfully speaking, there can be no higher claim than that of the One People’s Public Trust, except for one made by the Creator.

The legal remedy is that corporations are foreclosed. Their assets are now being returned to the people through SWISSINDO Exhibits A-B. These funds are to be redistributed through Creation’s Value Asset Centers (CVACs) and supported by a new financial system. In this way, the wealth of our planet is returned to the people equally. All corporate debt is erased and the corporate government system is terminated. The public record shows it: the OPPT UCC filing now stands as international law. According to the system’s own rules, the system no longer exists. In practical terms, it is now in a transitional phase.
Lawfully, nobody can stand as a superior authority between a person and the Creator. By
lawfully removing the control mechanisms of economy and government, the One People’s
Public Trust leaves individuals in full liability, each one being personally responsible for
themselves. We ensure the freewill rights of others by using the legal framework of the CVAC to form local governance (not ‘government’).

The OPPT UCC filings specified that our planet’s resources cannot therefore be owned by
corporations; sold to the people for a price; metered out in ‘salary’ quantities to enslave the
people; or withheld to create poverty or destitution. Under the One People’s Public Trust, we all have equal equity. Our planet’s resources now belong to each of us in equal measure. That is our birth right. Now it is law.

What solutions are provided by the OPPT UCC Filings?

With the lawful dissolution of the corporate government systems comes the dissolution of the multitude of statutes and regulations that were created through its legislative and administrative frameworks. The illegal debts of the former corporations are not the debts of the people. The International Criminal Court defines these as ‘odious debt’.
To facilitate our transition into the post-corporate world, the OPPT Trustees created a new lawful framework, informed by universal common law, which will allow us to build new economic and legal communities and which also allows for the dismantling of the old unjust system. Universal law based in common law now becomes the overarching principle for governing conduct between beings. According to universal law, “any free will choice is permissible except where it interferes with the free will choice of another being.” Any person (and especially all military personnel whose oaths have been cancelled by the termination of the corporation they worked for) may now “knowingly, willingly, and intentionally volunteer” to be bonded to the Public Trust “as public servants… to protect and serve all people of the creator.”

Public servants who choose to become bonded to the Public Trust are:

  • Authorized and ordered to “protect and preserve the blood and life” of all persons;
  • Authorized to “take into custody any and all … agents and officers… owning, operating, aiding and abetting private money systems… legal enforcement systems… [and] operating slavery systems”;
  • Authorized to “repossess all private money systems, tracking, transferring, issuing,
    collection, legal enforcement systems”;
  • Granted “due authority of discretion… to use any [and] all means, force and strategies… to complete this order.”

Willing members of the military are provided a lawful framework to abandon the corporatecontrolled military, to bond themselves to the Public Trust, and to actively contribute to the repossession of the people’s assets. Military orders established by OPPT UCC Filing No. 2012096074 and Executive Order UN 104333 are:

  • Arrest and take into custody any and all certain states of body, their agents, officers, and other actors, regardless of domicil by choice:
  • Repossess all private money systems, tracking, transferring, issuing, collection, legal enforcement systems, slavery systems and any and all other systems pre-paid by state citizens without consent, inclusive of those commandeered there from, and secure them for the people;
  • You are duly forbidden and prohibited from taking the blood and life of any state of body created by the Creator:
  • You are duly authorized and ordered to protect and preserve the blood and life of any state of body:
  • You are absolutely granted due authority of discretion to forthwith implement and use any all means, force, and strategies, known and unknown, of the Creator and the created, to complete this ORDER, done and operated, with the restrictions stated herein, by, with and under your full personal liability, insured by your due oath and bond as identified herein,
    restated, and further guaranteed and insured by, with and under the full personal liability of the undersigned bondservants, states of body, and trustees.

The CVAC: Creation’s Value Asset Center

The trust that is now formally prepared to underwrite this global initiative has been misused at an international level. In February of this year, the Trustee of the SWISSINDO International Orbit Trust, Mr. A1.Sino.AS.S“2”.IR.Soegihartonotonegoro, ST, has deployed the One People’s Public Trust UCC filings to legally declare an end, worldwide, to corruption, collusion and nepotism (known in Indonesia by the acronym KKN: ‘korupsi, kolusi, nepotisme’). The people of the earth are presently afraid to retire old systems of government, banking, and judicial structure because they don’t know what will replace them, even though the complete corruption of these institutions is killing us all. We can resolve that equation with the logic of a robust new framework that will handily support our transition to life on a much better planet.

Creation’s Value Asset Centres (or CVACs) are assistance mechanisms designed to support and serve humanity, the custodians of Earth. They provide an interconnected, global network of support, operated by bonded public servants who act in full liability at all times. They provide a simple framework of governance and administration, covering 12 areas of functional process. Each former nation on the planet has one CVAC branch reserved for it, with the exception of the Vatican. Each CVAC branch administers the same services and operates in the same way as the CVAC branches in other regions, adjusted for local requirements. Every human on the planet will be supported by each and any CVAC hub, and every human will have access to the same resources and support networks. CVACs facilitate the development of local communities, digitally connected. Each administrative area of each CVAC is operated by a Regional Council whose primary role is to coordinate and facilitate the people in making decisions and resolving issues. This structure also allows for additional sub-CVACs to be created accommodating new
circumstances or initiatives, provided that their function is for the benefit of all beings and does not undermine the freewill rights of others.

By definition, the CVAC system is the antithesis of the corrupt corporate tools we called
‘governments’. Accountability and transparency are the cornerstones of the CVAC framework. CVACs provide the platform for us to simplify and unify laws for all, and to ensure the needs of all are met. They are prevented from impinging on the freewill of any entity “in any and all existence”, and bound to “preserve and protect all creations, and value and asset centers”. Stewards and council members will be subject to renewal of their bonded roles at three month intervals, which ensures that public servants remain responsible to the people at all times. For these reasons, CVACs are the foundation of a new type of governance. The system now serves the people, and not the other way around.

GOD SKY EARTH is the first CVAC

Mr. Sino.AS does not seek to change any existing economic systems that are doing no harm. Rather, he wishes to offer everyone, globally, the first CVAC structure as a carapace of protection under which funds can be disbursed. Mr. Sino.AS’s main intent is to preserve existing systems wherever this is possible. He does not wish to harm any other living being nor see any harmed. Here, Mr. Sino.AS’s metaphysical sense comes through strongly. Indonesian culture has retained a focus on ancient metaphysical principles that have been discouraged in western culture. GOD SKY EARTH has been created entirely to suit one sovereign being’s interaction with the needs and desires of like-minded others. Indeed, we expect this of the participants of every CVAC on the planet. GOD SKY EARTH cannot be regarded as a kingdom in any of the usual western historical senses of the term, because the CVAC structure is entirely non-coercive.

Similarly, it is not necessary to subscribe to the tenets of one particular philosophy or
ecclesiastical doctrine in order to be receptive to the underlying values that Mr. Sino.AS
endorses, as they are universal. This is the New World Order entirely defanged.

As the 681st King of Kings, Mr. Sino.AS wishes to introduce and endorse his own CVAC
recommendations for governance (not government), according to which each participant affirms that they stand in full self-awareness and declares that they are willing to become a sovereign of the kingdom of the world. As a sovereign of the kingdom of the world they affirm their planet’s commitment to a civil world governance founded in principles of universal values, the basis of the law of the world. As a sovereign being participating in the kingdom of the world, they consciously affirm their inherent responsibilities and rights as a legitimate member of the world community. Sino concludes that the principle of unity above all is a civil commitment to preserve planet Earth.

The collateral supporting the accounts that GOD SKY EARTH proposes to grant directly to the people of the world is collected under the SWISSINDO Trust designation ‘Exhibits A and B’. The backing for these accounts consists of 74,760,920,184 kilograms of collateral gold, stored throughout the Indonesian Archipelago. Traditionally, by “master agreement” (and prior to Mr. Sino.AS’s change of plans), Mr. Sino.AS has handed the dividends of the interest-bearing accounts backed by this gold to 25 countries through the U.N. and the World Bank. These are the off-ledger accounts that have been funding the world’s corporations, including the world’s corporate governments, for decades.

Witnessing that there is “global change and fiscal strain and demand of a monetary nature,” Mr. Sino.AS has declared that the Committee of 300 and the United Nations have now received sequential audits performed on behalf of the SWISSINDO Trust, and so are amply informed of both his plan and his authority to execute it. These audits are represented in the Declaration as “ASBLP Final Report 1900-2008, ASBLP-0333902-2010, ASBLP-Audited Accounts 0330-2012

Data Sheets INFINITE BANK STATEMENTS (Supervision: The Committee of 300 – The
World Bank Group)”. The document proclaims that the Committee of 300 and the United
Nations have now had the opportunity to review the changes Mr. Sino.AS has made to the plan for disbursement of the Global Collateral Accounts, per audits of the Trust’s Infinite Bank Statements as supervised by the World Bank. Because the Bank for International Settlements (and all subsidiary banks globally) have now been lawfully foreclosed by the UCC legal filings of the One People’s Public Trust, SWISSINDO seeks to establish an alternate route for disbursing the funds of the Trust to all of the world’s people directly. In technical terms, this is not a complex matter. The means of bypassing the existing banking system is straightforward. Mr. Sino.AS’s instruction is for the asset-based funds that will enable the transition to be disbursed via a series of CVACs that for the sake of convenience he calls the ‘5 Continents’:

Asia, Africa, Europe, Americas, and Australia. The people called to manage this transition will work under the following auspices: “UN-SWISSINDO-OMD for Europe; UN-MUNSWISSINDO for Asia, UN-SWISSINDO (OPPT) for Africa, the Americas, and Australia.” In implicit acknowledgement of the student revolutionaries who have been critically important to Indonesia’s history as a republic, Sino avers that this is “the new generation of the best in the world as the messenger of GOD, the Lord Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.” Sino proposes to pay out a series of accounts numbered 1-11 to “all participants”, which is to say to the global human population. The funds go to all “7 Billion people on Planet Earth (5 Continents) with the Global Key Master Plan” that has been in development since the time of the Declaration of Indonesian Independence, but which had been subverted by large corporate organizations and institutions that have now been foreclosed.

Mr. Sino.AS recommends that members of the GOD SKY EARTH CVAC stop “the bankers and heads of government who have been violators of human rights (UN-1948) since the start of the Republic of Indonesia, and which have inhibited the management of the assets” known to westerners as the Global Collateral Accounts. Mr. Sino.AS acknowledges that the existing government and banking bureaucracies constitute a harvesting system. This debt slavery system can now be replaced with an asset-based system of credit that eliminates usury. The UCC legal filings of the One People’s Public Trust foreclosed existing banks and governments; reconfirmed the legal framework for true common law, replacing for-profit admiralty law systems; and laid the framework for CVACs as new forms of governance. CVAC governance councils that are
established by sovereign beings, each having their own system of value exchange under common law, is the only legal mandate by which the SWISSINDO Trust can be administered.



How do you repair a rotten egg?


As the title of the article below suggests, the flaw isn’t just in the analysis according to the author, imho but also in the remedy offered. I AM not an economist in any way whatsoever, but only an (ardent) observer. In my observation, most if not all the market/financial investigative reports by the ‘experts’ in this field are within and looking from “in-the-box” and as such could only offer band-aid remedies to what they see as the “ailing financial system” caused by blah-blah-blah. Are they wrong? Yes and No. No because its the myopic view from within. Yes if its from “outside-the-box”. The myopic view from within is that the system can be repaired and working well again as it is only slightly broken here and there. Here’s a classic:

The solution: A Financial Transaction Tax (How to deal with Wall Street)

When an industry has negative impacts on the broader public, economists call these effects “externalities.” It doesn’t mean we should destroy the industry, but rather, limit the harmful behavior. In much the same way that we should tax carbon dioxide — and do tax cigarettes and alcohol — we should also tax financial transactions.

The truth is the system is rotten at its core and designed exactly as that. How do you repair a rotten egg, which even a dog won’t eat? Fix the cooker or the rusty pan, change the chef, or burn a bigger hotter fire (QE)? That’s what they are doing…but the egg remains rotten! They need to get outside the box to see the rotten egg as Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf did when she started the investigation on the system and revealed in her 16 page report – The Paradigm Report. She saw and revealed the impossible to repair fraudulent ROTTEN EGG. Economics/Finance is not rocket-science and it only seems complicated (by design) to mask and veil so that the simple Joe won’t see or understand it. Finance/Accounting as is everything else on this planet, is simply about IN and OUT and if you understand that you’ll get it.



A Flawed Analysis of What Ails the Economy

A Popular Meme, that Remains as Wrong as When it Was First Conceived


A recent article in the Guardian mocks JC Juncker’s latest scheme to produce some €300 billion in “investment” with a magical money multiplication scheme. Naturally, we agree that Juncker’s plan is deeply flawed, to put it as politely as possible. We have pointed this out already, even before he made the financing details known, which make very little sense.

The article also correctly notes that “QE” has not achieved anything worth noting. However, it is otherwise based on an utterly flawed analysis. The author pleads for “QE bombing” the citizenry itself, i.e., he wants central banks to print money and simply hand it out to everybody. A similar proposal has been made by several economists recently, in Germany and elsewhere. It follows on the heels of the just as absurd idea that central banks should simply “cancel” the government debt they have bought.

Apparently the purveyors of these hoary inflationist schemes – which arguably are economically an order of magnitude more crazy than what modern-day central bankers have already perpetrated – have forgotten about John Law and post-revolution France. The assumption that the British pound would have retained anything close to its current purchasing power if 24,000 pounds had been mailed to every family in the UK is absurd. But this is by far not the only or even the most important problem. The main problem is that all these supporters of unbridled inflationism are making the cardinal mistake of confusing money with wealth.


…Inflationism is apparently more popular than ever. It doesn’t seem to matter how often and how consistently it fails to produce the desired results, there are always more people in the world who have an epiphany about saving the economy by printing money. When we say that the “banks have literally nothing left to lend” we are saying this: the economy has become so structurally damaged by previous credit booms that if banks indeed were to lend out more money, they would be almost guaranteed to lose most of it.

What is necessary to “fix” the economy is not the printing of more money, not even if it is distributed to citizens directly instead of being given to banks in exchange for both their dodgy and not-so-dodgy securities. The best thing government can do is nothing at all. However, we will amend this advice by adding that if governments really feel a need to be proactive, they should reduce regulations, lower taxes or simply generally shrink the State with all that implies. Read more



We’ve corporatized the planet: The unseemly secret about America’s foreign policy


This sort’s actions and systems, whether under the deceptive guise of “government”, “office”, “treaty”, “act”, “constitution”, or “entity”, inclusive of the private systems formerly known as, “NATION”, “UNITED NATIONS”, and its special agencies of “IMF”, “THE HAGUE”, “WORLD BANK”, and “BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS”….from each family of this sort of “magician”, from land to land, sea to sea to “The Holy Sea”, all have been lawfully, legally and duly verified as REGISTERED in COMMERCE as duly FORECLOSED…duly verified DEBTORS to the people, all the people equally on earth, on October 24, 2012, as a matter of law, matter of fact, and as a matter of public policy…unrebuttable and unrebutted. Over many moments of present, the lawful and legal standing, authority, value, rights, and principle of law aligned with common law of the people, all the people equally, have been lawfully, legally and duly REGISTERED in COMMERCE as it was created by Prime, by Zero Point, by creation, as a matter of record, unrebuttable and unrebutted. – read full text TOPPT Announcement



In Ukraine, however, these efforts seem to have failed. Here’s why that’s a good thing


We do not read much about Ukraine lately, do we? With unseemly speed, among the most important developments of the last few years has fallen out of the paper. There is a reason for this: Washington has sustained another, in this case very major, defeat. The policy failed. And we Americans cannot talk about defeat and failure if they are our own.

The moment of truth was the cease-fire accord the Kiev government, Moscow and the two republics declared in eastern Ukraine signed in Minsk on September 5. With that document, Vladimir Putin succeeded in putting a stop to the preposterous charade wherein Ukraine was supposed to swerve smoothly into the Euro-American camp, so rolling out the neoliberal agenda like linoleum straight up to Russia’s borders.

Nice try, Victoria Nuland and all other “new world order” idolators. Actually, it was a very horrific try, costing several thousand lives and wrecking cities and vast parts of eastern Ukraine’s productive infrastructure. All this for the sake of deregulated capital and “free markets.” Is there a widow in Donetsk who will one day explain, “Son, your father died because the Americans put people in charge who wanted corporations such as Chevron to profit from our resources while pushing our family into poverty?”

The Minsk protocol provides for a sanitized corridor nearly 20 miles wide between Kiev-controlled territory and the eastern sections of the country, where Russian is the first language and the seductions of free-market capitalism have not gone over so well. This is near-term common sense.

Further out, the eastern Donbass is to get some degree of autonomy greater than the insincere offer Kiev has made to date. And the eastern region will hold its own elections, these now brought forward over Kiev’s objections to November 2.

We witness the federalization of Ukraine, in a word—the sensible way forward from the first, a perfectly good expression of the nation’s divisions, except that Russian leader Vladimir Putin advocated a federal Ukraine, so it could not be right.

From all one can make out, Putin shaped this deal in back-channel collaboration with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. This is significant, in my view, and I will return to the point further on.

It is difficult to call this outcome, assuming it stays on track, a success for the neoconservatives at the State Department, or the phony foundations State sponsors to advance the corporatization of the planet in the name of democracy. Too many casualties, too much wreckage, the new government in Kiev is already revealed as another crew of corrupt incompetents, and all that got done was the stimulation of animosities that ought to have been discouraged.

And since we can talk about neither success nor defeat nor failure, we talk about nothing.

I am quite pleased to see my country once again defeated, and pleased all over again to say so. Defeat and failure are precisely what we Americans need most in our conduct abroad and need most urgently to talk about.

The thought will be bitter to many, unthinkable to others. Still others will assert that the columnist is “anti-American”—the oldest chestnut around, a profoundly anti-American thought—or a shill for Putin. This stuff bores me nearly to tears at this point. When will the 1950s end, I often wonder.

I have written in this space before about the way optimism is sometimes buried in apparent pessimism. American foreign policy now is such a case and Ukraine Exhibit A.

The argument is simply stated: This country, my country, can do better than it does. We are a better people than all our coups and anti-democratic subversions tell the world we are. This phrase I have mentioned a couple of times, author yet to be identified: “Wherever in the world you find a mess, be certain the Americans have been there.” It is true, a source of shame and anger considering all the lost opportunity, but it does not have to be.

The above paragraph seems angelic, surely. Let me try it another way for all the realpolitik people: If we fail to do better, and soon, we are going to fare very badly in the new century.

The best way to justify a taste for conversations about defeat and failure is to note at the start the very intimate relationship between these two and change. What is this relationship? This is our question.

As many readers recognize, American policy abroad since 1945 is one long, looped story of doing the same thing again and again and coming up with the same result. This result may be undesirable to a lot of us but not to all of us. Our foreign policy cliques remain fixated on the extension and preservation of American power and prerogative. Little has changed in this respect since the Spanish-American War in 1898.

That is the object. And to preserve this objective it is essential to avoid any talk of defeat. We have one policy failure after another in front of us—it is an especially weedy garden at the moment—but an assessment of mistakes never issues from Washington. Tactics change, and most of the hubbub goes to them. Strategy never changes, and few even question it.

You know the point of this observation, surely: If we can begin talking about defeat, failure, messes, stupidities, inhumanity, and loss, we can begin talking about change—and then, astonishing as the thought is, change policy and altogether the way we address the world.

There, in a sentence, is my optimism hiding in the pessimism. One loves to see American foreign policy failures—apart from all the unnecessary suffering, of course—because one dislikes the policy and thinks vastly better can be achieved once policy direction changes.

I explored this thought in my last book. Another is much worth mentioning now. Some readers will know “The Culture of Defeat,” Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s 2001 book (and his best, in my view). I urge the book on readers not yet acquainted.

Schivelbusch argues that a defeated nation is forced to reassess its worldview in that events have proven it wrong. In consequence, the vanquished revalue their values, re-imagine themselves, renovate their place among others. Then they re-emerge, a new people with new goals. Schivelbusch is German. Post-1945 Germany is not among his examples, but is there a better one to make the point? (Transparency: Schivelbusch is a friend.)

What becomes of victors, then? Events have proven them superior, of course. All they need do is keep on just as they have it. No need for self-examination, or to inquire into their place in the world, or to ask whether there is a better way at anything. The victors naturally assume they got it right—and so set out on the congested road to atrophy.

It should be easy enough to see how the thesis is germane to the American predicament. But we have to ask, What exactly is it that has been defeated in the American case? Policy is never more than a reflection of belief and what is taken to be knowledge. What are the beliefs and what the assumed knowledge, then?

I identify two defeats in this regard.

First is the ideological clothing long used to dress up America’s interventionist behavior abroad. This is the exceptionalist narrative, in short. Assistant Secretary Nuland may have stood next to a Chevron plaque when, in a speech recorded in a much noted YouTube clip, she described the $5 billion Washington and numerous corporations have spent in Ukraine since its independence in 1991. But the conceit was that all has been done to light the torch for democracy and freedom.

This reasoning (if that is the word) was long ago defeated, as even Washington’s closest allies understand, but no one in Washington will yet talk about this defeat. Ninety-seven years after Wilson’s famous speech, making the world safe for democracy remains the pretense. The result is inevitable failure, as Ukraine tells us.

Second is the neoliberal order and Washington’s ability to assert it. The Washington Consensus of the post-Berlin Wall years was never a consensus outside the Beltway and died a death long ago. But anywhere they can, the ideological children of the Chicago School persist, insisting it is just the thing for everybody. Again, no capacity to recognize the error and learn from it.

Ukraine is interesting in this respect: Those in the east who opposed Kiev’s westward tilt did so for many reasons—historical, cultural, political, familial—but among these was a recognition that exchanging a long-established, altogether organic relationship with Russia for life under an International Monetary Fund austerity plan was a bad, bad deal.

The German connection is important here. I and others have long argued that the rise of middle-income nations—India, China, Russia, Iran and many others—will produce a non-Western alternative to Atlantic primacy. It does not take genius to see this: It takes an open mind, open eyes, a plane ticket and long walks at the other end of the flight. The evidence of things to come is everywhere.

The Christian Democratic Merkel is an odd messenger in this, but Germany may come to have a foot in this camp. The collaboration with Putin suggests it persuasively: In my read, Merkel was instrumental in getting Kiev to swallow its ridiculous pretenses and, more implicitly, in overriding Washington. Germany’s muted but unmistakable resistance to Washington’s aggressive sanctions campaign against Russia makes the point more broadly.

These are defeats, the kind I favor without hesitation.

America’s day can come again, providing Americans choose the option by renovating or replacing the political system so that it reflects the popular will. But America’s day will have to go first, and this it is essential to accept.




Police Work is a Racket


“Yes. The Commercial Registry. The Uniform Commercial Code. Commerce. Whether “Domestic” and “International”…matters not. Over many moments of present, it was quietly and covertly made the supreme law of all lands on earth, the secretly prized pinnacle of human capital and natural wealth registration and management of what have been formerly referred to as the “powers that be.” With feverish focus and commitment, it has been made uniform right before your very eyes…albeit, “eyes wide shut” for the most part. What is not widely known, is that this “supreme law” has been duly REGISTERED in COMMERCE and duly gifted to the people equally and jointly as their full indefeasible title, ownership, and rights as SECURED PARTY, a matter of record, unrebuttable and unrebutted.”OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE ONE PEOPLE’S PUBLIC TRUST – December 25th, 2012

Police Work Has Become a Racket



Somewhere in my bag I have an envelope that contains a bill. It was handed to me by a local policeman after being stopped on an interstate highway in Texas. I was doing a mean 80 miles per hour in a 75 mph zone.

So of course this great servant of the public had to stop me before I endangered the lives of so many others, including the people going 85 and 90 miles per hour who were passing me on the right and left. I got caught because—well, probably because the others were going too fast to catch.

So this guy stops me and informs me of my very bad behavior. He explains that I’m not allowed to do what I was doing and so therefore he has to give me a citation. But he assures me that this citation does not mean that I’m necessarily guilty. This is a government of laws, not of arbitrary dictates by heavily armed people in bulletproof vests, and so therefore I have a constitutional right to a fair trial.

Or so we are constantly told.

I kind of began pressing him on this, which I probably should not have done lest I get arrested yet again. But I couldn’t help myself.

“Let’s just say that I think you are wrong. I mean, you are probably right, but let’s just say that I think you made this whole thing up. I can dispute this in front of the judge?”

“Yes, sir, you may. Just see the court date.”

“And where is this court?”

“Right here in this county.”

Of course I had explain to him that I was headed to the airport and that I live 1,000 miles away. I asked whether I could use Skype or Google Hangout to attend my hearing.

“I’m sorry, sir, you have to attend in person.”

I continued on: “So I have to drive to Atlanta, catch a flight to Dallas, rent a car and drive 100 miles south on some particular date in order to have my rights realized? You do understand that this would cost me probably two days of work and as much as $1,000?”

“Well,” he said, “how you get to the court is up to you.”

“How much is the ticket?” I asked.

He said the cost chart is printed on the citation itself. As best I can tell this will cost me about $135. I asked whether, if he were in my position, he would rather spend $135 or $1,000. He didn’t answer.

So I pressed further. Let’s say that I go through all of this and finally end up at the bench of Mr. Judge and declare my innocence. What happens then?

“At that point, the judge will schedule a trial.”

Now, hold on here just a moment. So I’ve come all this way back and spent $1K and then the judge schedules a trial, so then I have to repeat the whole thing over again, therefore spending $2K?

“Again, how you travel and how you get here is your concern.”

“And, in the end, I still have to pay the ticket because, after all, you are the policeman and I’m just some schmoe who says you are wrong.”

At that point, just slightly annoyed with me, he wished me a good day and left. I was the idiot holding the bill, and I couldn’t help but just laugh.

After all, look at what my rights come down to. I can spend $2,000 and probably four days of my life plus $135, or I can just pay $135. Hmmm, hard decision! Exercising my rights can be pretty darn expensive!

So let’s think about this scenario for a moment. What happened to me? Did I get in trouble for endangering people, meaning that my citation improved the social order by goading us all into safer behavior? Somehow I don’t think so.

I’ll tell you what happened: I was taxed, which is to say I was robbed. This seems to be the major function of police work now, raising money for the government. In fact, it is something that police themselves have suggested as a way of forestalling budget cuts.

As Police Chief Magazine suggested after the 2008 financial crisis, there is a way to “help the survival of a city and maintain or expand police service through generating new revenue streams as a proactive approach to meet the fiscal crisis of today and the uncertain future of tomorrow.”

To gain more details on how this works, I interviewed Justin Hanners, who left police work in protest against these tactics.

Of course they don’t pitch it this way to the public they plan on looting. We are told that it is all about our safety. Lysander Spooner said that at least the highwayman doesn’t claim that he is stealing from me for my good. Police should have at least as much integrity.

Now, let’s take this analysis a bit further. What if I don’t pay? I’ll get a note that says I’d better cough it up and fast, or else I will lose my license.

Let’s say I do lose my license and I drive anyway. Then I get caught and get fined again.

And what if I don’t pay again and still drive? At some point, I’ll be jailed. And what if I try to run away while they are arresting me? I might get tased. I might get shot with real bullets. I might even die.

It all seems quite extreme, doesn’t it? The death penalty for going a few miles an hour over the speed limit. But if you think about it, every law is enforced this way, all the way to the ultimate end point. Even the most seemingly innocuous law is enforced with aggression not only against property but also against life itself. This is why law, legislation, and regulation are so dangerous. In the name of bringing peace and order, they actually bring the threat of violence to bear against us all.

Sorry, officer, I don’t feel helped.




The UCC Connection – How the Uniform Commercial Code ‘secretly took over’ the world

Stillness in the storm

Seeing through the Mud

The UCC 'took over' all contractual arrangements during the bankruptcy since lawful money did not exist as of 1933

The UCC ‘took over’ all contractual arrangements during
the bankruptcy since lawful money did not exist as of 1933

“I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.” – Howard Freeman

The clarity afforded the average Joe when it comes to applying the Law to his advantage is about as clear as mud pie; no transparency. The methods presented in the following are more passive ways of dealing with our legal system, basically by ‘boxing the judge in a corner.’ Now I personally have not tried any of this, however I see the value in this approach. Instead of having to go into court guns blazing I just ask honest questions transparently and the rest just falls into place.

There are some amazing warriors out there in the field of Freeman techniques, Dean Clifford is an example. Sometimes, the system is so corrupt there is no choice but to be the Warrior; and jail time may be the result. Dean has many different approaches and is willing to invoke the Warrior, and like most, humble warriors would rather avoid conflict – settle out of court. In the Harmless as a Dove approach, we are asking questions in a cooperative manner, we genuinely want them to reveal themselves but because their system is so dependent on secrecy they will want to avoid disclosing their fraud.
Here we have a lot of conceptual clarity. Howard Freeman, does a wonderful job at articulating the concepts in plain English making this understandable; from my point of view.

Howard Freeman reveal’s:

– The story behind why the UCC “secretly took over” all legal/lawful matters on the planet;

– How the UCC works to resolve agreements instead of contracts;

– How to reserve your rights under the UCC;

– How to dispel presumptions in court; with examples and scenarios.

Because of the Bankruptcy of the United States, Inc. in 1933 we have been “keeping tabs” of all our “debts” using accounting and negotiable instruments. I refer to this as an ‘Global Financial System’ or ‘IOU system’ and use terms to describe the concepts involved but this whole idea is very cryptic. The words Statements and Bills mean something completely different under Commerce then they do in our everyday usage. Winston Shrout has a powerful grasp of this knowledge. Lets look at the definition of a negotiable instrument from the UCC:

§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), negotiable instrument” means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order…

As you can see “promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money” means the same as an IOU.
Read further >



The UCC Connection – How the Uniform Commercial Code ‘secretly took over’ the world


the UCC ‘took over’ all contractual arrangements during the bankruptcy since lawful money did not exist as of 1933

Seeing through the Mud

“I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.” – Howard Freeman

The clarity afforded the average Joe when it comes to applying the Law to his advantage is about as clear as mud pie; no transparency. The methods presented in the following are more passive ways of dealing with our legal system, basically by ‘boxing the judge in a corner.’ Now I personally have not tried any of this, however I see the value in this approach. Instead of having to go into court guns blazing I just ask honest questions transparently and the rest just falls into place.

There are some amazing warriors out there in the field of Freeman techniques, Dean Clifford is an example. Sometimes, the system is so corrupt there is no choice but to be the Warrior; and jail time may be the result. Dean has many different approaches and is willing to invoke the Warrior, and like most, humble warriors would rather avoid conflict – settle out of court. In the Harmless as a Dove approach, we are asking questions in a cooperative manner, we genuinely want them to reveal themselves but because their system is so dependent on secrecy they will want to avoid disclosing their fraud.
Here we have a lot of conceptual clarity. Howard Freeman, does a wonderful job at articulating the concepts in plain English making this understandable; from my point of view.

Howard Freeman reveal’s:

– The story behind why the UCC “secretly took over” all legal/lawful matters on the planet;

– How the UCC works to resolve agreements instead of contracts;

– How to reserve your rights under the UCC;

– How to dispel presumptions in court; with examples and scenarios.

Because of the Bankruptcy of the United States, Inc. in 1933 we have been “keeping tabs” of all our “debts” using accounting and negotiable instruments. I refer to this as an ‘Global Financial System’ or ‘IOU system’ and use terms to describe the concepts involved but this whole idea is very cryptic. The words Statements and Bills mean something completely different under Commerce then they do in our everyday usage. Winston Shrout has a powerful grasp of this knowledge. Lets look at the definition of a negotiable instrument from the UCC:

§ 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT.(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), negotiable instrument” means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order…

As you can see “promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money” means the same as an IOU.

I.O.U. ∞ $ Infinity plus Interest

This ‘Global Financial System’ is similar to a global IOU system, because no lawful money exists – we exchange IOU’s and never actually “settle the accounts” with real money. Lawful money is backed by real things. Before

all Federal Reserve Notes are IOU’s backed by the labor
of the people

1933, you exchanged a gallon of milk for a dollar, which is a promise to pay gold or silver; real value for real value. Now, because the US Dollar is the global reserve currency, based on fractional reserve banking that requires interest to be imposed constantly on the debtor’s, all nations and all over the world are forced under this IOU system with infinite debt due to interest for our children’s children. Under this system, you exchange a gallon of milk for a promise to pay “nothing plus interest”, thats what money became after 1933. Final point, since the money is worthless, literally and lawfully, but you exchange something of real value your it – your labor – we are getting scammed at a phenomenal rate! It is Literal slavery.

Normal contract law could not function – there was no way to actually provide consideration for services under Common Law and Equity Contracts without lawful money. Since Common Law (criminal) and Equity Law (contracts) require remedy or exchanges of real value, the entire ‘Justice System’ was turned upside down. A new system needed to be created which appeared lawful, but was not in any true sense – as long as there was a presumption of true law (colorable), the average joe would be none the wiser. This is the system we know to today as UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code.

The UCC deals with presumptive agreements, instead of true contracts which have full transparency; and knowing willing and intentional consent of all parties involved. Instead of contracts being enforceable only if all parties agreed knowingly, willingly and intentionally, now Agreements can be enforced based on essentially cured statements or presumptions. If I make a ‘ presumptive statement’ with ‘material evidence’ – a bill from your creditor with some numbers on it that ‘suggests’ a contract exist – and you do not rebut this statement, it cure’s under the UCC given a period of time.

This portion of the Julian’s Debt Contesting Experience – OPPT Success Stories describes the concept:

A contract requires transparency and agreement of the parties involved. Did you sign with your wet ink signature making a new contract with this third party? No you did not and the way they get around that is by asking for you to send them payment, even if it is very small. This creates a legal (but now lawful) basis for contract which they can then try and use against you. Legal but not lawful? How does that make sense, lets take a look.

The legal basis is referred to as Tacit Procuration. Tacit means:
Understood or implied without being statedand Procuration means:

The act by which one person gives power to another to act in his place, as he could do himself. A letter of attorney.

Procurations are either express or implied; an express procuration is one made by the express consent of the parties; the implied or tacit takes place when an individual sees another managing his affairs, and does not interfere to prevent it.
Consent for Procurations can be ‘implied’ by failure to respond or ‘stand up and state otherwise.’ Given these meanings what we can understand is FAILURE to respond is CONSENT. We must REBUT the PRESUMPTIONS that this new third party has any claim to the debt. Contesting the debt with a written statement is, in law, absolutely effective as a means of rebutting the presumptions and REMOVES the IMPLICATION that this undisclosed third party may have PROCURED the claim on the debt by TACITUS means.

It is unlawful because in order for a contract to be binding and enforceable there must be a “meeting of the minds” or full disclosure and transparency. A-party to a contract that sells off their interest to a new party without the express consent of ALL parties involved (which means your explicit consent) is unenforceable in law, unless you unwittingly allow them Tacit Procuration by NOT rebutting their presumptions and responding to their offer to contract.

Under the UCC you must assert your rights in advance of any presumptive circumstance in order to secure them. What is a presumptive circumstance? When you are pulled over and you hand the Police Officer your Corporate Identification documents (your drivers license) there is presumption you are working for the United States, Inc, are an agent of government, knowingly consenting to be subject to ALL Statues and Rules under their Corporate system. Its as if you are saying: “because I wear Nike shoes I work for Nike and have to follow the rules as an employee of Nike.”

“I reserve my rights WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-308”

This is the state of affairs on planet earth. Deceptive acts and practices. It is this same system that the now reconciled One Peoples Public Trust used to foreclose on all banks and Corporations masquerading as Government in late 2012.

A statement of “I reserve all my rights without prejudice UCC 1-308” prevents any

Reserve your rights or loose them!

presumptive contracts from being asserted; however actually using this can be more complex. One should be well prepared with key knowledge and understanding before trying to apply anything that goes against the grain – in my opinion. It is important to understand our society is based mainly on these presumptive offers to contract. The IRS is a prime example of an unlawful presumptive organization. It asserts the presumption you are a taxpayer when under all the Statues of the US we are tax payers and only pay taxes by government granted privilege; i.e. you are an agent of government or you are earning income in a way that was enabled by the government (tax shelter from foreign earned income for example).

Here is what Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 means from the UCC:

§ 1308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.
(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest,” or the like are sufficient.

The method of articulation seems intentionally cryptic – they are trying to hide the meaning in plain sight; lets analyze. “Explicit reservation of rights” means, you make a statement, just like they make statements, that your rights are totally yours without any presumption to the contrary. “Performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party” means, if you get duped or coerced into an agreement – even if you were not aware of it – the agreement will not be enforceable under the UCC system, if you assert your rights beforehand – “without prejudice UCC 1-308.”
There are presumptions to contract everywhere in society. The UCC is designed to be based on statements, which go un-rebutted, and then become enforceable. Transparency is your friend. And as we often say here on SITS: Know Thyself. Be aware of who you are and how that BEingness extends outwardly everywhere. There is only ONE of us after all and this one makes up all things. You are your greatest asset and investing in the knowledge of yourself and how that relates to this world you live in and how it works will be your greatest tool.

– Justin



This is slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who may have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this information without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded material.

The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and like most fear, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we must “get a good lawyer,” but that is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money, and then tell us as the ship is sinking, “I can’t help you with that – I’m an officer of the court.”

Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a “snowball’s chance …” is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law. The attorney lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage. While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp – are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law. Mr. Freeman admits that he is not a lawyer, and as much, he has a way of explaining law to us that puts it well within our reach. Consider also that the framers of the Constitution wrote in language simple enough that the people could understand, specifically so that it would not have to be interpreted.

So again we find, as in many other areas of life, that “THE BUCK STOPS HERE!” It is we who must take the responsibility for finding and putting to good use the TRUTH. It is we who must claim and defend our God-given rights and our freedom from those who would take from us. It is we who must protect ourselves, our families and our posterity from the inevitable intrusion into our lives by those who live parasitically off the labor, skill and talents of others.

To these ends, Mr. Freeman offers a simple, hopeful explanation of our plight and a peaceful method of dealing with it. Please take note that this lecture represents one chapter in the book of his understanding, which he is always refining, expanding, improving. It is, as all bits of wisdom are, a point of departure from which to begin our own journey into understanding, that we all might be able to pass on to others; greater knowledge and hope, and to God: the gift of lives in peace, freedom and praise.

“I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.”

I was asked to testify in a tax case as an expert witness. After many days of preparation, I felt confident of my research. I spent over 30 minutes presenting many Supreme Court decisions that supported the defendant’s position. The prosecution concluded his statements, and to my amazement, the judge told the jury that they could only consider certain facts, none of which were the facts I had given.

As soon as the trial was over I went around to the judge’s office and he was just coming in through his back door. I said, “Judge, by what authority do you overturn the standing decisions of the United States Supreme Court. You sat on the bench while I read that case law. Now how do you, a District Judge, have authority to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court?” He says. “Oh, those were old decisions.” I said, “Those are standing decisions. They have never been overturned. I don’t care how old they are; you have no right to overturn a standing decision of the United States Supreme Court in a District Court.”


He said, “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll honor it, but all the decision you read were prior to 1938, and I don’t honor those decisions.” I asked what happened in 1938. He said, “Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. The charge that Mr. S. was being tried for is a Public Policy Statute, not Public Law, and those Supreme Court cases do not apply to Public Policy.” I asked him what happened in 1938? He said that he had already told me too much – he wasn’t going to tell me any more.


Well, I began to investigate. I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case. A man had sued the Erie Railroad for damages when he was struck by a board sticking out of a boxcar as he walked along beside the tracks. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: that this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company. Under the Common Law, he was damaged and he would have had the right to sue.

This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years. Swift v. Tyson in 1840 was a similar case, and the decision of the Supreme Court was that in any case of this type, the court would judge the case on the Common Law of the state where the incident occurred – in this case Pennsylvania. But in the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases will be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level. So here we find the blending of Law with Equity.

This was a puzzle to me. As I put these new pieces together, I determined that all our courts since 1938 were Merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts. There were still some pieces of the puzzle missing.


Fortunately, I made a friend of a judge. Now you won’t make friends with a judge if you go into court like a “wolf in black sheep country.” You must approach him as though you are the sheep and he is the wolf. If you go into court as a wolf, you make demands and tell the judge what the law is – how he had better uphold the law or else. Remember the verse: I send you out as sheep in wolf country; be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. We have to go into court and be wise and harmless, and not make demands. We must play a little dumb and ask a lot of questions. Well, I asked a lot of questions and boxed the judges into a corner where they had to give me a victory or admit what they didn’t want to admit. I won the case, and on the way out I had to stop by the clerk’s office to get some papers. One of the judges stopped and said, “You’re an interesting man, Mr. Freeman. If you’re ever in town, stop by, and if I’m not sitting on a case we will visit.


Later, when I went to visit the judge, I told him of my problem with the Supreme Court cases dealing with Public Policy rather than the Public Law. He said, “In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told:

America is a bankrupt nation – it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments.

Take silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction – call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.


The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence.

No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.

So you say, just innocently like a lamb,
“Well, I didn’t know that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so, in good faith, I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then, pursuant to section 3-501 of your UCC, (Presentment), the prosecutor will have no difficulty placing the [alleged] contract into evidence, so that I may examine and [possibly] challenge the validity of the contract.”

What they would have to do is place the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.


But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they don’t want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a WORLD ARMY and all courts into a single WORLD COURT, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. When we understand these things, we realize that there are certain secrets they don’t want to admit, and we can use this to our benefit.

The Constitution of the United States mentions three areas of jurisdiction in which the courts may operate:
Common Law

Common Law is based on God’s law. Anytime someone is charged under the Common Law, there must be a damaged party. You are free under the Common Law to do anything you please, as long as you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. You have a right to make a fool of yourself provided you do not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of someone else. The Common Law does not allow for any government action which prevents a man from making a fool of himself. For instance, when you cross over the state lines in most states, you will see a sign which says, ” BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELTS – IT’S THE LAW. ” This cannot be Common Law, because who would you injure if you did not buckle up? Nobody. This would be compelled performance. But Common Law cannot compel performance. Any violation of Common Law is a CRIMINAL ACT , and is punishable.
Equity Law

Equity Law is law which compels performance. It compels you to perform to the exact letter of any contract that you are under. So, if you have compelled performance, there must be a contract somewhere, and you are being compelled to perform under the obligation of the contract. Now this can only be a civil action – not criminal. In Equity Jurisdiction, you cannot be tried criminally, but you can be compelled to perform to the letter of a contract. If you then refuse to perform as directed by the court, you can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal action. Are our seatbelt laws, Equity Laws? No, they are not, because you cannot be penalized or punished for not keeping to the letter of a contract.
Admiralty/Maritime Laws

This is civil jurisdiction of Compelled Performance which also has Criminal Penalties for not adhering to the letter of the contract, but this only applies to International Contracts. Now we can see what jurisdiction the seatbelt laws (all traffic codes, etc) are under. Whenever there is a penalty for failure to perform (such as willful failure to file), that is Admiralty/Maritime Law and there must be a valid international contract in force.

However, the courts don’t want to admit that they are operating under Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdictions, so they took the international law or Law Merchant and adopted it into our codes. That is what the Supreme Court decided in the Erie Railroad case – that the decisions will be based on commercial law or business law and that it will have criminal penalties associated with it. Since they were instructed not to call it, Admiralty Jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction.


You must ask how we got into this situation where we can be charged with failure to wear seatbelts and be fined for it. Isn’t the judge sworn to up hold the Constitution? Yes, he is. But you must understand the Constitution, in Article I, § 10, gives us the unlimited right to contract, as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or property of someone else. Contracts are enforceable, and the Constitution gives two jurisdictions where contracts can be enforced – Equity or Admiralty. But we find them being in Statutory Jurisdiction. This is the embarrassing part for the courts, but we can use this to box the judges into a corner in their own courts. We will cover this more later.


Under the Common Law, every contract must be enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally by both parties or it is void and enforceable. These are characteristic -it must be based on substance. For example, contracts used to read, “For one dollar and other valuable considerations, I will paint your house, etc. That was a valid contract – the dollar was a genuine, silver dollar. Now, suppose you wrote a contract that said, “For one Federal Reserve Note and other considerations, I will paint your house….” And suppose, for example, I painted your house the wrong color. Could you go into a Common Law court and get justice? No, you could not. You see, a Federal Reserve Note is a “colorable”1 dollar, as it has no substance, and in a Common Law Jurisdiction, that contract would be unenforceable.


The word “colorable” means something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is “colorable.” If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a “colorable” contract. And “colorable” contracts must be enforced under a “colorable” jurisdiction. So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts which use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction.

1 colorable: That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be, hence counterfeit,
feigned have the appearance of truth. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

It is ” colorable ” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using ” colorable money .” colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction. Let’s see how we got under this Statutory Jurisdiction.


The government set up a “colorable” law system to fit the “colorable” currency. It used to be called the Law Merchant or the Law of redeemable Instruments, because it dealt with paper which was redeemable in something of substance. But, once Federal Reserve Notes had become unredeemable, there had to be a system of law which was completely “colorable” from start to finish. this system of law was codified as the Uniform Commercial Code , and has been adopted in every state. This is “colorable” law, and it is used in all the courts.

I explained one of the keys earlier, which is that the country is bankrupt and we have no rights. If the master says “Jump!” then the slave had better jump, because the master has the right to cut off his head. As slaves we have no rights. But the creditors/masters had to cover that up, so they created a system of law called the Uniform Commercial Code. This “colorable” jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code is the next key to understanding what happened.


One difference between Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code is that in Common Law, contracts must be entered into (1) knowingly, (2) voluntarily, and (3) intentionally.

Under the U.C.C., this is not so. First of all, contracts are unnecessary. Under this new law, “agreements” can be binding, and if you only exercise the benefits of an “agreements,” it is presumed or implied that you intend to meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept a benefit offered by government, then you are obligated to follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. The method has been to get everyone exercising a benefit , and they don’t even have to tell the people what the benefit is. Some people think it is the driver’s license, the marriage license or the birth certificate, etc. I believe it is none of these.


I believe the benefit being used is that we have been given the privilege of discharging debt with limited liability, instead of paying debt. When we pay a debt, we give substance for substance. If I buy a quart of milk with a silver dollar, that dollar bought the milk, and the milk bought the dollar – substance for substance. But if I use a Federal Reserve Note to buy the milk, I have not paid for it. There is no substance in the Federal Reserve Note. It is worthless paper given in exchange for something of substantive value. Congress offers us this benefit :

Debt money, created by the federal United States, can be spent all over the United States of America, it will be legal tender for all debts, public and private, and the limited liability is that you cannot be sued for not paying your debt.

So now they have said, “We going to help you out, and you can just discharge your debts instead of paying your debts.” When we use this “colorable” money to discharge our debts, we cannot use a Common Law court. We can only use a “colorable” court. We are completely under the UCC, using non-redeemable negotiable instruments and we are discharging debt rather than paying debt.


Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find them. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.


The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel. (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).7)

It is important to remember when we go into a court that we are in a commercial international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say, ” I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ,” the judge will most likely say, “You mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court !” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction, and defend under another. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax in a certain year, do you go to the French government and say, “I demand my Constitutional Right?” No. The proper answer is: THE LAW DOESN’T APPLY TO ME – I’M NOT A FRENCHMAN. You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged – not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your reservation of rights under (pursuant to) the [their] U.C.C. 1-308 (old 1-207).

UCC 1-308 (old 1-207) goes on to say:

When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date . (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).9)

You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:

The Sufficiency of the Reservation – Any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights, is sufficient,
such as “WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” (UCC 1-308 (old 1-207).4)

Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) -in any way, shape or manner – under your signature write: Without Prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207). This reserves your rights. You can show, at 1-308 (old 1-207).4 that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.

It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing “without prejudice UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)” on his statement to the court. He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge that he was not prejudiced against anyone …. The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and fined him an additional $25.00 for a frivolous defense. You must know what it means.

pursuant to UCC 1-308

When you see “Without Prejudice” UCC 1-308 in connection with your signature, you are saying:
“I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract, commercial agreement or bankruptcy that I did not enter knowingly , voluntarily , and intentionally . And furthermore, I do not and will not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement or bankruptcy.”

Actually, it is better to use a rubber stamp, because this demonstrates that you had previously reserved your rights. The simple fact that it takes several days or a week to order and get a stamp shows that you had reserved your rights before signing the document.

What is the compelled performance of an unrevealed commercial agreement? When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of silver dollars, is it voluntary? No. There is no lawful money , so you have to use Federal Reserve Notes – you have to accept the benefit. the government has given you the benefit to discharge your debts with limited liability, and you don’t have to pay your debts. How nice they are! But if you did not reserve your rights under 1-308 (old 1-207).7, you are compelled to accept the benefit, and are therefore obligated to obey every statute , ordinance and regulation of the government, at all levels of government – federal, state and local.

If you understand this, you will be asked to explain it to the judge when asks. And he will ask, so be prepared to explain it to the court. You will also need to understand UCC 1-103 – the argument and recourse.

If you want to understand this fully, go to a law library and photocopy these two sections from the UCC. It is important to get the Anderson [Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code, Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company] edition. Some of the law libraries will only have the West Publishing version, and it is very difficult to understand. In Anderson, it is broken down with decimals into ten parts, and most importantly, it is written in plain English.


The Recourse appears in the Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:

The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law .

This is the argument we use in court:

The Code recognizes the Common Law. If it did not recognize the Common Law, the government would have had to admit that the United States is bankrupt, and is completely owned by its creditors. But, it is not expedient to admit this, so the Code was written so as not to abolish the Common Law entirely.

Therefore, if you have made a sufficient, timely, and explicit reservation of your rights at 1-308 (old 1-207), you may then insist that the statutes be construed in harmony with the Common Law.

If the charge is a traffic, you may demand that the court produce the injured person who has filed a verified complaint. If, for example, you were charged with failure to buckle your seatbelt , you may ask the court who was injured as a result of your failure to “buckle up.”

However, if the judge won’t listen to you and just moves ahead with the case, then you will want to read to him that last sentence of 1-103.6 which states:

The Code cannot be read to preclude a Common Law action.

Tell the judge:
“Your Honor, I can sue you under the Common Law, for violating my right under the Uniform Commercial Code.” I have a remedy, under the, UCC to reserve my rights under the Common Law. I have exercised the remedy, and now you must construe this statute in harmony with the Common Law, you must come forth with the damaged party.”

If the judge insists on proceeding with the case, just act confused and ask this question:
“Let me see if I understand, Your Honor. Has this court made a judicial determination that the sections 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the system of law you are operating under, are not valid law before this court?”

Now the judge is in a jamb! How can the court throw out one part of the Code and uphold another? If he answers, “yes,” then you say:
“I put this court on notice that I am appealing your judicial determination.”

Of course, the higher court will uphold the Code on appeal. The judge knows this, so once again you have boxed him into a corner.


Just so we can understand how this whole process works, let us look at a court situation such as a traffic violation. Assume you ran through a yellow light and a policeman gave you a traffic ticket.

1. The first thing you want to do is to delay the action at least three weeks. This you can do by being pleasant and cooperative with the officer. Explain to him that you are very busy and ask if he could please set your court appearance for about three weeks away.

[At this point we need to remember the government’s trick: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” Now we want to use this approach with them).

2. The next step is to go the clerk of the traffic court and say:
“I believe it would be helpful if I talk to you, because I want to save the government some money (this will get their attention). I am undoubtedly going to appeal this case. As you know, in an appeal, I have to have a transcript, but the traffic court doesn’t have a court reporter. It would be a waste of taxpayer’s money to run me through this court and then to have to give me a trial de novo in a court of record. I do need a transcript for appealing, and to save the government some money, maybe you could schedule me to appear in a court of record.”

You can show the date on the ticket and the clerk will usually agree that there is plenty of time to schedule your trial for a court of record. Now your first appearance is in a court of record and not in a traffic court, where there is no record.

3. When you get into court, the judge will read the charges: driving through a yellow light or whatever, and this is a violation of ordinance XYZ. He will ask, ” Do you understand the charges against you ?”

4. It is very important to get it read into the record, that you do not understand the charges. With that in the record, the court cannot move forward to judge the facts. This will be answered later.

5. “Well, Your Honor, there is a question I would like to ask before I can make a plea of innocent or guilty. I think it could be answered if I could put the officer on the stand for a moment and ask him a few short questions.

Judge: “I don’t see why not. Let’s swear the officer in and have him take the stand.”
“Is this the instrument that you gave me?” (Handing him the traffic citation).

Officer: “Yes, this is a copy of it. The judge has the other portion of it.”
“Where did you get my address that you wrote on that citation?”

Officer: “Well, I got it from your driver’s license.”
(Handing the officer your driver’s license) “Is this the document you copied my name and address from?”

Officer: “Yes, this is where I got it.”
“While you’ve got it in your hand, would you read the signature that’s on that license? (The officer reads the signature). “While you’re there, would you read into the record what it says under the signature?”

Officer: “It says, “Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308.” [old 1-207]

Judge: “Let me see that license!” (He looks at it turns to the officer). “You didn’t notice this printing under the signature on this license, when you copied his name and address onto the ticket?”

Officer: “Oh, no, I was just getting the address – I didn’t look down there.”

Judge: “You’re not very observant as an officer. Therefore, I’m afraid I cannot accept your testimony in regards to the facts of this case. This case is dismissed.”

6.a. you had reserved your Common Law rights under the UCC;

b. you had done it sufficiently by writing “Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308 (old 1-207)” on your driver’s license;

c. the statute would now have to be read on harmony with the Common Law, and the Common Law says the statute exists, but there is no injured party; and

d. since there is no injured party or complaining witness, the court has no jurisdiction under the Common Law.

5. If the judge tries to move ahead and try the facts of the case, then you will want to ask him the following question:
“Your Honor, let me understand this correctly, has the court made a judicial determination that it has authority under the jurisdiction that it is operating under, to ignore two sections of the Uniform Commercial Code which have been called to its attention? If he says, yes, tell him that you put the court on notice that you will appeal that judicial determination, and that if you are damaged by his actions, you will sue him in Common Law action – under the jurisdiction of the U.C.C.”


Note: These are some of the questions asked after the main lecture. Some are restatements of material presented earlier, but they contain very valuable information which is worth repeating.

Question: How did you “box in” the judge?

This is easy to do if you don’t know too much. I didn’t know too much, but I boxed them in. You must play a little ignorant.

If you are arrested and you go to court, just remember that in a criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a reversible error for the court to try you. If you don’t understand the law, they can’t try you.

In any traffic court case or tax case you are called into court and the judge reads the law and then asks,

“Do you understand the charges?”

Defendant: No, (Your Honor,) I do not!


Well, what’s so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the wrong way on a one-way street or you didn’t. You can only go one way on that street, and if you go the other way, it’s a fifty dollar fine. What’s so difficult about this that you don’t understand?”

D: Well, Your Honor, it’s not the letter of the law, but rather the nature of the law that I don’t understand. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution gives me the right to request the court to explain the nature of any action against me, and upon my request, the court has the duty to answer. I have a question about the nature of this action.

J: Well, what is that – what do you want to know?

Always! Ask them some easy questions first, as this establishes that they are answering. You ask:

D: Well, Your Honor, is this a Civil or Criminal Action?”

J: It is criminal. (If it were a civil action there could be no fine, so it has to be criminal).

D: Thank you, Your Honor, for telling me that. Then the record will show that this action against ___(Straw Man Name)___ is a criminal action, is that right?

J: Yes.

D: I would like to ask another question about this criminal action. There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution; one is under the Common Law , and the other deals with International Maritime Contracts , under an Admiralty Jurisdiction . Equity is Civil, and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law. But what puzzles me, Your Honor, is, there is noCorpus Delicti here that gives this court a jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law. Therefore, it doesn’t appear to me that this court is moving under the Common Law.

J: No, I can assure you this court is not moving under the Common Law.

D: Well, thank you, your Honor, but now you make the charge against me even more difficult to understand, the only other criminal jurisdiction would apply only if there was an International Maritime Contract involved and I was a party to it, it had been Breached, and the court was operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction.

I don’t believe I have ever been under any International Maritime Contract, so I would deny that one exists. I would have to demand that such a contract, if it does exist, be placed into evidence, so that I may contest it, but surely, this court is not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction.

You just put words in the judge’s mouth.

J: No, I can assure you, we’re not operating under an Admiralty Jurisdiction. We’re not out in the ocean somewhere – we’re right here in the middle of the State of North Carolina, No, this is not an Admiralty Jurisdiction.

D: Thank you, Your Honor, but now I am more puzzled than ever. If this/these charge/s is/are not under the Common Law, or under Admiralty – and those are the only criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution – what kind of jurisdiction could this court be operating under?

J: It’s Statutory Jurisdiction.

D: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. I’m glad you told me that. But I have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under that, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you provide me with the location of a copy?



Foreclosure Flyer – HTML eMail

Foreclosure 2013-06-15 16-08-48

I have created a HTML version of the ‘Foreclosure Flyer’ for those who choose to use HTML mail. It gives a more pleasing and professional outlook.

It can be used in most Mail applications like Mozilla’s Thunderbird and Windows Outlook.

Its very simple to use this html email and here’s how:

  1. Download the zip files here
  2. Unzip and open the ‘forclosure.html’ file in any text application e.g. Windows Notepad..
  3. Open Thunderbird (e.g.) and click ‘Message’ > ‘New Message’
  4. In the opened ‘Write’ box fill up the necessary ‘addresses’ and ‘subject’
  5. Click down In the ‘write space’ and then from the tool bar click ‘Insert’ > ‘HTML’
  6. When the ‘Insert HTML’ box appears you copy (select all) from the ‘foreclosure.html’ file which you opened earlier in Notepad.
  7. Paste inside the ‘Insert HTML’ box in Thunderbird and click ‘insert’ (button at the bottom)
  8. That’s it, then you click ‘Send’ in Thunderbird

Happy flying!